Category talk:Neutral Characters
Classification I've been thinking about this for a while but I don't believe I've ever brought it up. Are there (or can we create) some concrete rules for classifying a character as neutral? I've seen plenty of bad guys who are thrown into this category willy-nilly because they have a three dimensional backstory, or decide to do the right thing for once, or whatever other reasons that make users think a character deserves to be considered neutral. I think it would help sort things out a little bit smoother if maybe we had a checklist on what does and doesn't make a character neutral. --- Haroldrocks talk 23:04, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :All three classifications are a bit murky since, as time has moved on, a lot of characters have shifted on the "good - evil" spectrum. :I would go with the long view of a character. Over all, do they function on the side of good, evil, or balance - either by helping/ignoring both extremes, by drawing motivation from both ends, or by not being motivated by either - in the stories. That's going to make it really tricky with the Prime characters since we've only go 3 years worth of stories. :- Byfield (talk) 23:32, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::I've always wondered where supporting characters fit. Are they good? They aren't heroes but that aren't bad either. Kyletheobald (talk) 00:18, May 23, 2014 (UTC) :::Depends on the character. Some of them are going to fit under "Good" (Ron Troupe would be a good example of this I think), some under "Bad" (Quiz and Query), and few under "Neutral" (Gambioni the tailor). - Byfield (talk) 00:36, May 23, 2014 (UTC) :::: What I'm thinking of specifically, Byfield, is Leonard Snart (Prime Earth). He was recently changed to being neutral. Captain Cold has always been, and as far as I know, a bad guy. Although he's not as bad as other guys like Zsasz or Joker, he still robs banks and participates in criminal activities, no? So, even if he's doing some good stuff during Forever Evil, his alignment is still bad right? --- Haroldrocks talk 00:45, May 23, 2014 (UTC) ::::: Snart is a good example. From what I see, the pre-Flashpoint characterization still holds. He's a crook and killer primarily focused on himself. There are things he will not do, and to an extent not allow others to do. But evil having limits does not make it good or neutral. If the heel-face turn progresses and sticks, there may be an argument in a few years that the Prime version has crossed into "Neurtal" or "Good" categorization territory. But not now. Same with Luthor. - Byfield (talk) 00:52, May 23, 2014 (UTC) : So, to re-spark this, what guidelines can we put on alignment? Can we make a checklist of how to categorize into Good, Neutral, or Bad? --- Haroldrocks talk 20:18, May 28, 2014 (UTC) ::I'd say anti-heroes in general are neutral characters. Catwoman is a thief with a heart of gold, Captain Cold is a thief with a code (and not typically a killer, Byfield). I think we have to think about it in terms of good and evil, rather than good and bad. Is Catwoman evil? Hardly. Is she Good? Not entirely. Is Captain Cold good? Not really, no. Is he evil? Moreso than Catwoman, anyway. (I guess that doesn't help much). ::That said, as far as minor characters go - I think the old "man is essentially good" adage should apply, unless we see the character doing bad things. - Hatebunny (talk) 20:33, May 28, 2014 (UTC) ::: Part of that is trying to fit where a character slips into being a an anti-hero (a term that tends to be way overused). I'm comfortable with Catwoman being termed a "Neutral character" since her characterization has stabilized in the grey area between "Good" and "Evil". Cold is currently closer to the evil end. His characterization is biased more towards doing bad things. Doing "Good" is an aberration for the character, not really something that justifies shifting him from "Bad Characters". - Byfield (talk) 00:16, May 29, 2014 (UTC)